THE law protecting women and children from acts of violence was never intended to shield mothers who are themselves the abusers of their children, the Supreme Court has ruled.
Noting that the law’s provision in defining acts of violence against children used the gender-neutral word “person” as the offender, “which embraces any person of either sex,” the high tribunal reversed a Taguig court’s ruling rejecting the petition of a father who sought protection for his daughter from her abusive mother.
Even though Republic Act 9262 is intended to protect both women and their children, “a mother who maltreated her child resulting in physical, sexual, or psychological violence defined and penalized under RA 9262 is not absolved from criminal liability,” the SC stressed in upholding the plea of Randy Michael Knutson.
RA 9262, the Anti-Violence Against Women and Children Act of 2004 – or more popularly referred to as VAWC [pronounced as “vaw-si”] was considered a landmark legislation that took decades to enact, and the court’s interpretation, in Knutson’s case, of its gender-neutral penal provisions against abusers of children is also deemed a landmark of sorts.
Voting 9-5, the SC held that upholding the trial court’s ruling will weaken RA 9262 since it will remove from its coverage cases where the mother herself is the abuser of her child.
It also branded as “discriminatory” the trial court’s position that children who suffered abuse from the hands of their own mothers may invoke other laws, except RA 9262.
In its landmark decision, the SC upheld the right of the father to apply for protection and custody orders for his child against the mother who is alleged to have committed violence against their child under RA 9262.
In an 18-page decision penned by Associate Justice Mario Lopez, the Cour en banc granted the petition filed by Knutson, an American citizen, seeking the reversal of the Regional Trial Court of Taguig’s ruling dismissing his petition for the issuance of temporary protection and permanent protection orders on behalf of his daughter.
Knutson recounted that he met his wife Rosalina in Singapore in 2005, got married and had a daughter.
In 2011, the family lived in the country but the couple became estranged after Knutson discovered his wife’s infidelity.
Despite their separation, the petitioner provided financial support to his wife and daughter.
However, the petitioner said his wife got addicted to gambling and would often leave her daughter in the care of strangers when she went to casinos.
Rosalina incurred large debts from casino financier, prompting her to sell the house and lot, condominium unit and vehicles that Knutson provided for the family.
His wife ended up renting an apartment and entered into a romantic relationship with another man.
Maltreated daughter
He also discovered that his daughter was being maltreated by her mother.
One time, the petitioner claimed his wife pointed a knife at her daughter and threatened to kill her.
He also told the court his wife once even texted him about her plan to kill their daughter and to commit suicide.
Knutson reported the matter to the police station, but the authorities explained that they cannot assist him in domestic issues.
Afterwards, the petitioner said his wife sent pictures of her daughter’s naked body with a message that he would not her see body again.
Their neighbors also would also complain about noisy parties and pot sessions in her apartment.
The apartment’s owner eventually terminated the lease agreement after marijuana plants were confiscated in the premises.
This prompted Knutson to seek redress before the Taguig court on December 7, 2017 on behalf of his minor child by filing a petition under RA 9262 for the issuance of temporary and permanent protection orders.
The petitioner said his wife placed their daughter in a harmful environment deleterious to her physical, emotional, moral and psychological development.
However, the Taguig RTC dismissed the petition in an order issued on January 10, 2018, saying that RA 9262 cannot be issued against a mother who allegedly abused her own child.
The trial court explained that the child’s mother cannot be an offender under that law.
Furthermore, the trial court said the remedies are not available to the father because he is not a “woman victim of violence” based on the law.
His motion for reconsideration was denied by the trial court, which reiterated that RA 9262 does not apply to a situation where the mother committed violence against her own child.
This prompted the petitioner to elevate the issue before the SC, citing grave abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court .
Knutson argued that RA 9262 does not limit the offender to a male person and the legislative intent is to provide all possible protection to children.
Although the petitioner should have brought the issue before the Court of Appeals based on the doctrine of hierarchy of courts, the SC said it decided to take jurisdiction over the issue “in the interest of justice and public welfare.”
It said the resolution of the issue will benefit not only the parties but also children who are similarly situated.
“Hence, it is an opportune time for this Court to answer the novel query with far reaching implications on whether the father may apply for protection and custody orders against the mother who is alleged to have committed violence against their child,” the SC pointed out.
In granting the petition, the SC declared that contrary to the trial court’s ruling, RA 9262 allows the father of the offended party to apply for protection orders.
The Court explained that although it previously ruled in Garcia v. Drilon (Garcia case) that Congress excluded men as victims under RA 9262 as its legislative intent is to limit the protection against violence to women and children only, it is still “improper to conclude” that the law denies a father of the remedies provided under the law solely because of his gender or that he is not a “woman victim of violence.”
The SC noted that Section 9 (b) of R.A. 9262 allows “parents or guardians of the offended party” to file a petition for protection orders on behalf of children.
“The statute categorically used the word ‘parents’ which pertains to the father and the mother of the woman or child victim. Absolute sentencia expositor non indigent. The law speaks in clear language and no explanation is required. There is no occasion for the Court to interpret but to only apply the law when it is not ambiguous,” the SC said.
“Similarly, the statute did not qualify on who between the parents of the victim may apply for protection orders. Ubi lex non distinguit, nec nos distinguere debemus. When the law does not distinguish, the courts must not distinguish,” it added.
Furthermore, the SC said Section 3 (a) of RA 9262 defines violence against women and their children as “any act or series of acts committed by any person against a woman who is his wife, former wife, or against a woman with whom the person has or had sexual or dating relationship , or with whom he has a common child, or against her child whether legitimate or illegitimate … which result in physical, sexual, psychological harm or suffering, or economic abuse…
However, the court noted, the said provision used the gender-neutral word “person” as the offender, “which embraces any person of either sex.”
“In sum, the Court refuses to be an instrument of injustice and public mischief perpetrated against vulnerable sectors of the society such as children victims of violence,” the SC stressed.
“The Court will not shirk its bounded duty to interpret the law in keeping with the cardinal principle that in enacting a statue, the legislature intended right and justice to prevail,” it added.
Nine associate justices concurred in the ruling: Marvic Leonen, Ramon Paul Hernando, Amy Lazaro-Javier, Henri Jean Paul Inting, Samuel Gaerlan, Ricardo Rosario, Jhosep Lopez, Japar Dimaampao, and Jose Midas Marquez.
Chief Justice Alexander Gesmundo together with Associate Justices Alfredo Benjamin Caguiao, Rodil Zalameda, Antonio Kho, Jr. and Maria Filomena Singh, dissented from the majority opinion.
Image credits: Mike Gonzalez via Wikimedia Commons CC BY-SA-3.0
